Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
STATION
MSNBC 6
MSNBCW 6
CSPAN 3
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
the deficit but americans do not support sacrificing real spending cuts for more tax hikes." >>> efforts by the white house to head off spending cuts come as a new government report predicts the budget deficit will drop below $1 trillion for the first time during obama's presidency. the congressional budget office which assumes that the cuts will go into effect march 1st says the government will run a deficit of $845 billion this year. that's compared to $1.1 trillion short fall. the outlook predicts the improvements will not last. it warns that an aging population will drive up retirement spending and rising interest rates will put the debt at unsustainable level it's current laws remain in place, debt by 2023 will equal 77% of gross domestic product. that is roughly double the 39% average seen over the past 40 years. >>> coming off the republicans' bruising defeat, eric cantor is looking to rebrand his party n a speech at a d.c. think tank, he moved away from his combative tone expressing a need to work on issues with president obama important to the nation. >> hour house majority will
we're going to get these defense cuts and deficit hawks, conservatives, tea partiers are putting moderate republicans in a bind saying this is cutting our deficit. let's go for it. >> the grand irony, of course, is the fact that the number -- if you poll people their number one issue is jobs, right? it continues to be jobs. and $120 billion austerity crunch, the numbers being bantered around, in exchange for the sequester, which is like $85 billion. whatever it is, right, that's a big chunk. that will have an effect, negative jobs effect, no question. >> it is going to have an effect, i agree with you, chris. here is what i think. i think it is a risk. there will probably be a small recession. we had a .1 decrease in gdp last time. this deficit is a real problem. this is where i depart from paul. who am i to depart from paul? a nobel laureate. >> we'll ask him. >> this is about the best deal we'll get out of the right-winged crazy people in the house. >> because it's balanced and -- >> it doesn't really touch -- there's no better deal progressives are going to get out of this oth
with smarter spending reductions to bring down the deficit. we can do it in a gradual way so that there is less of an impact. these deductions that certain folks can take advantage of, the average person cannot. not everyone has access to cayman island accounts, the average person does not have access to carry interest income, where they wind up paying a much lower rate on the billions that they earned. we want to make sure that the whole system is fair and transparent and that we are reducing our deficit in a way that does not hamper growth and reduce the kinds of strategies that we need in order to make sure that we are creating a strong middle-class. host: jim from south carolina, on the republican line, good morning. caller: how are you? host: well, thank you. caller: you keep mentioning and hearing people talking about pensions, but pensions are just invested the same way that 401k is. stocks and bonds. people with pensions lost money as well. i heard cases where people were not going to get as much money. if someone is manages their 401k, i do not know, it needs to be managed properly and
'll be following this. >>> to washington now. members of congress remain focused on deficits, spending and how to head off the looming sequestration cuts poised to kick in early next month. in separate interviews on sunday, house minority leader nancy pelosi and majority leader eric cantor laid out the economic dividing lines. >> what we need is growth. we need growth with jobs. and if you have spending cuts, education of our children and other investments like the national institutes of health where you are hindering growth, you're not going to reduce the deficit. so it is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. we have a budget deficit problem that we have to address. we think the deficit and the national debt are at immoral levels. we think they must be reduced. we're sick and tired of paying interest on the national debt. and that's 15% -- that's a large percentage of the budget. >> the tax fight for the president means higher taxes, more revenue. again, we can't be raising taxes every three months in this town, david. and you know, the bottom line is we want tax reform,
feel that same sense of shared responsibility. that is how we will reduce our deficit. that is america built to last. [laughter] -- [applause] i recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt and energy and health care. no matter what party they belong to, i bet most americans are thinking the same thing right about now -- nothing will get done in washington this year. or next year. or the year after that, because washington is broken. can you blame them for feeling all little bit cynical? the greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year did not come from event beyond our control. it came from a debate in washington over whether the united states would pay its bills or not. who benefited from that fiasco? i talked tonight about the deficit of trust between main street and wall street. but the divide between the city and the rest of the country is at least as bad, and it seems to get worse every year. host: from january of last -- of last year, the president in his state of the union address. some of the same themes it will continue this wee
this debt problem. [applause] if you look at what is happening here, it is true that the deficit are going to be below $1 trillion for the first time in several years. and it is true that the new revenues raised in spending that you did not do. it is true that the economy is beginning to grow again. but this is almost like the reverse of what we did in 1993. that is, i was prickly well aware if we raise taxes and cut spending, it could have a dragging effect in the economy. but not nearly as much as spending 40% of the budget paying interest on the debt. not nearly as much as having low growth. at nearly as much as having interest rates that were too high. so our gamble was that the explosive the fact of lowering interest rates, with a booming bond market and having more disposable income over a 5 =-10 year period would more than offset putting the hammer down by raising more money and cutting spending. it turned out to be a good gamble, but it made sense. it will make sense here again. but timing is everything. and so, i think he should have a budget that does not defy our arithmetic but
appropriations committee yesterday we learned that we're actually making progress in getting the budget deficit to shrink below a trillion dollars. which you have saluted as good news. >> you know, a lot of people forget what president bill clinton did. if we would have just continued what he did back when he left office, we would have been -- we had a surplus. we wouldn't be in this situation. but bottom line is the deficit is i believe it is the lowest in some time in 2008. we ought to be celebrating we're actually moving the target down. it is moving down instead of going up. but nobody has picked up. i'm glad she picked that up. bill and victoria, thank you for telling the listeners that president obama and all of us working together, we're actually bringing down the deficit. >> bill: the deficit's going down and the market the dow is going up. so there is some good economic news that you never hear about except here on the "full court press." congressman henry cuellar great to have you with us this morning. >> thank you, bill and victoria. >> bill: we'll be back to continue our conversatio
this regarding eric cantor, who is giving a much-hyped speech regarding the deficit and towards a broader and more inclusive role they can play. he says mr. cantor can apply the existing gop policies. so that, i think at this point in time is a great question for the republican party at least right now. can their response to the 2012 election be to just change the tenor and temperature of their approach to politics rather than the actually policies. can they just stop primarying guys like dick luger without changing the approach to say, inequality. that is the message, changing your hope is different than changing your policies. it is great to have you both here, thank you for joining us. >> great to be here. >> molly, so can they? do they need to do more, need to sort of go back and look at policies or can you actually get pretty far just by changing the way your party acts in public? >> i think the answer is yes. they have to do both. and first of all the republicans find themselves in a situation that the democrats found themselves in maybe a decade ago, where they are on the wrong sid
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)